netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: Add trace events for all receive exit points

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181112204703.0bd2b627@vmware.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:47:03 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     Geneviève Bastien <gbastien@...satic.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: Add trace events for all receive exit points

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:46:53 -0500 (EST)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

> I also notice that in two cases, a "gro_result_t" is implicitly cast
> to "int". I usually frown upon this kind of stuff, because it's asking
> for trouble if gro_result_t typedef to something else than "int" in the
> future.
> 
> I would recommend going for two templates, one which takes a "int"
> ret parameter, and the other a "gro_result_t" ret parameter.
> 
> Or am I being too cautious ?

That's more of a question for the netdev maintainers. If they think
casting gro_result_t to int is fine, then I'm fine. If it breaks in the
future, they need to deal with it, I don't ;-)

The downside of two templates, is that the templates are the bloated
part of the trace event (DEFINE_EVENT()s are light weight). They can
add a couple of K to the memory foot print.

-- Steve